Creating a virtual learning community with HUB architecture: Cleerhub as a case study of user adoption

Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

665

Creating a Virtual Learning Community with HUB
Architecture: CLEERhub as a Case Study of User Adoption
Qaiser H. Malik
Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
National University of Science and Technology, Pakistan
E-mail: or

Nataliia Perova
School of Engineering Education
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
E-mail:

Thomas J. Hacker
Department of Computer and Information Technology
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
E-mail:

Ruth A. Streveler*
School of Engineering Education
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
E-mail:

Alejandra J. Magana
Department of Computer and Information Technology
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
E-mail:

Patrick L. Vogt
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
E-mail:

Ann M. Bessenbacher
Discovery Learning Research Center
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
E-mail:
*Corresponding author


666

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)
Abstract: The research aim of this article is to investigate the adoption patterns
of HUB platforms that create and support virtual learning communities (VLC).
The adoption patterns of one particular HUB called the Collaboratory for
Engineering Education Research or CLEERhub, is presented as an example of
how HUBs may be used as VLCs. After explaining the affordances of the HUB
architecture, the article uses two approaches to discuss the adoption of
CLEERhub by users. First, the authors link the five stages of Rogers’ Diffusion
of Innovation model with various CLEERhub user metrics. The resultant
mapping suggests that CLEERhub users are primarily in early stages of
adoption. This is not an unexpected finding given that CLEERhub has been
recently created. The second approach to studying adoption investigates the
experience of a group of college students who used CLEERhub to aid them in
completing a group assignment. A CLEERhub Usage Survey was developed
and implemented during the last part of the semester to collect information
about students’ experience with CLEERhub. Student reactions to CLEERhub
were generally positive. After the two approaches are presented, the paper

connects the approaches by speculating on how student experience (adoption
approach 2) might be mapped to the five stages of Rogers’ model (adoption
approach 1). The paper ends with considerations and suggestions for best
practices.
Keywords: CLEERhub;
Communities

Diffusion

of

Innovation;

Virtual

Learning

Biographical notes: Qaiser H. Malik is a Director, Engineering Education Cell
at the National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan, and is a
Postdoctoral Research Associate for the Collaboratory for Engineering
Education Research, Purdue. He has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
Michigan State University. His research interests include assessment,
evaluation, and cyberinfrastructure technologies in Engineering Education.
Nataliia Perova is currently a Ph.D. student in the School of Engineering
Education at Purdue University. She received her M.S. in Mathematics, Science,
Technology and Engineering education in 2008 and M.S. in Electrical
Engineering in 2005 from Tufts University and B.S. in Electrical Engineering
from Suffolk University.
Thomas J. Hacker is an Associate Professor of Computer & Information
Technology at Purdue University, and is Co-Leader of Information Technology

for NEES. His research interests include cyberinfrastructure systems, high
performance computing, and the reliability of large-scale supercomputing
systems. He has a Ph.D. in Computer Science & Engineering from the
University of Michigan.
Ruth A. Streveler is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering
Education at Purdue University. Her research interests include conceptual
change in engineering science and increasing engineering education research
capacity. She holds degrees in Biology (Indiana University), Zoology (The
Ohio State University) and Educational Psychology (University of Hawaii at
Manoa).
Alejandra J. Magana is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer
and Information Technology at Purdue University. Magana's research interests
are focused on the effective integration of computational concepts, methods,
and cyberinfrastructure technologies in engineering and technology education.
She holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University.


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

667

Patrick L. Vogt is a Master of Science student at Purdue University with a
specialization in Technology Leadership and Innovation. His research interests
include emerging technologies to improve organizational effectiveness.
Ann M. Bessenbacher is a project coordinator of the Discovery Learning
Research Center (DLRC) in Purdue's Discovery Park. She works with faculty
and research staff to coordinate projects, manages data, and steward web 2.0
online sites for DLRC projects. She provides expertise in data collection,
archiving and distribution.

1. Introduction
Access to Web 2.0 tools has significantly changed our ways of learning and teaching.
Affordances of features such as social media sites, web blogs, podcasting, wikis, and
social bookmarking have created new opportunities for interaction where students are no
longer passive knowledge receivers, but can actively participate in knowledge coconstruction with their peers, teachers and experts in the field.
Dede (2004) highlights the importance of making emerging educational
technologies available in schools and colleges ―to match the increasingly ―neomillennial‖
learning styles of their students‖ (p. 7) which he identifies as:






“Fluency in multiple media and in simulation-based virtual settings;
Communal learning involving diverse, tacit, situated experience, with
knowledge distributed across a community and a context as well as within
an individual;
A balance among experiential learning, guided mentoring, and collective
reflection;
Expression through non-linear webs of representations; and
Co-design of learning experiences personalized to individual needs and
preferences.‖ (Dede, 2004, p. 7)

Greenhow et al. (2009) and Baird & Fisher (2005) found that emerging social
networking media can support Neomillennial ―always-on‖ user learning styles by
fostering engagement, motivation and supporting the formation of learning communities.
Their research has shown that today’s students are expecting interactive and engaging
course materials as part of their learning process and educators need to focus their
attention on how to design courses with meaningful integration of online social media

tools that would support different student learning styles and narrow the ―digital
disconnect‖ between learners and educators (Levin et al., 2002).
To support better pedagogies of engagement and provide today’s ―digital natives‖
with more opportunities for interactive and participatory environments, Web 2.0
technologies have the capacity to enhance student learning through authentic, real-world
scholarship by enabling students to be active participants in the virtual learning
communities and have a part to play in the growth of knowledge (Lemke et al., 2009;
Jonassen & Duffy, 1992). Fleming (2005) defines virtual learning communities as
―emerging constructs that depend on the notion of socially constructed learning to
provide a focus for informed discussion and lifelong learning. They make use of
increasingly sophisticated technologies to establish, support, and maintain communities‖
(p. 1055).


668

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

This paper focuses on the following research question: How have users adopted
the Collaboratory for Engineering Education Research (CLEERhub) as a virtual learning
environment? User adoption is explored using two methods. First, we employ an
approach pioneered by Hacker and Magana (2011) that uses the Diffusion of Innovation
model (Rogers, 1995) to document HUB adoption. Secondly, we look at adoption
through the eyes of student users and present a case study students’ experience of
CLEERhub use in a college course. We also posit how student experience of HUB use
might map to Rogers’ model. The paper ends with considerations and best practices for
using HUBs as virtual learning environments.

2. HUBs
2.1. HUBs as Platforms for Virtual Learning Communities

Any discussion of HUB adoption must begin with an explanation of the HUBs. So we
begin the paper with background information about HUBs.
HUBs are platforms created by HUBzero (McLennan & Kennell, 2010), a group
created by Purdue’s Hub Technology Group in partnership with the NSF-sponsored
Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) to support the first HUB,
nanoHUB.org. (See HUBzero.org for more information).
As defined by HUBzero a ―HUB is a dynamic web site with many built in open
source packages—a Linux system running an Apache web server with LDAP for user
logins, PHP web scripting, Joomla content management system, and a MySQL database
for storing content and usage statistics.‖ ( In this context,
a HUB is specifically defined as a ―web-based collaboration environment.‖ CLEERhub
uses the following features to aid in this collaboration.


Online Presentations, Workshops, Seminars and Webinars: CLEERhub
features a series of online presentations, workshops, seminars and webinars.



Uploading New Resources: CLEERhub contains a self-service wizard that
guides users to upload resources of their own. New resources are advertised
under the What’s New heading on the home page.



Ratings and Citations: HUBs facilitate community building and quality control
by allowing registered users to post comments, use a 5-star rating scale, and add
citations related to a particular resource.



Content Tagging: Tags are mechanisms to categorize and search for content.
They are defined by the users or HUB administrators and are linked to resources.



Wikis and Blogs: HUBs supports knowledge creation through the use of "topic"
pages that use wiki syntax and are created by specified authors. A topic page can
be accessed by a specified part of the community, or the entire community. Like
a wiki, anyone with access can add to the topic page.



User Groups for Private Collaboration: CLEERhub allows registered users to
create groups, manage membership and roles of members, and determine
privacy settings.


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

669



User Support Area: This is the area where users can find Help or fill out a
support ticket that is forwarded to a HUB administrator.



Usage Metrics: Each HUB reports a variety of user and resource metrics.



News and Events: Registered users can post events on the HUB calendar. The
HUB administrator can post short stories about the accomplishments of the
community.



Feedback Mechanisms: Each HUB contains an area where users can take
surveys, share news items, or post comments or suggestions.

These features of the HUBzero infrastructure create an interactive, resource-rich
environment where a community of practice can access and share information.

2.2. Overview of HUBs
The Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) created the first HUB,
nanoHUB.org at Purdue with the goal is to transform nanoscience and nanotechnology
through resources for research, education, and collaboration in nanotechnology (NCN,
2006). The HUB platform has become very popular a new entity, HUBzero, was formed
to respond to this interest. The Purdue University HUBzero group has created a
consortium along with Indiana University, Clemson University, and the University of
Wisconsin. Each of these entities provides a hosting service for HUBs. HUBzero is also
available as freeware for groups who do not require a hosting service. There are currently
twenty-three live HUB sites – including CLEERhub - supporting work on the topics of
engineering, healthcare, nanotechnology, computer science, the environment, earth
sciences, accessible science, and STEM education with even more sites under
development.

2.3. CLEERhub

As a result of our partnership with HUBzero we customized an empty hub and created
CLEERhub that uses HUBzero architecture to create a ―digital habitat‖ for engineering
education researchers (Streveler, Magana, Smith & Clarke Douglas, 2010).
CLEERhub.org is a web-based collaboration environment with a clean interface and
selected features that would be most appropriate for the engineering education research
community (Streveler et al, 2010). As a member of HUBzero community, CLEERhub is
being constantly upgraded to keep it compatible with web 2.0 environments.
CLEERhub was created to fulfill three purposes. CLEERhub provides the target
users (engineering education researchers) with: 1) a knowledge base with an embedded
feedback mechanism; 2) a learning environment; and, 3) a collaboration space. The
knowledge base is an organized collection of all resources, data, and documentation. It is
meant to provide easy access and one window search capability to the engineering
education researcher. As a learning environment CLEERhub provides an online learning
space with access to host of presentations, workshops, seminars, webinars, course
materials, tools and instruments, and news and events. The collaboration space is
comprised of an interactive and collaborative platform in a Web 2.0 environment. A user
can create public and private groups to share and upload resources with the other
members of group, develop and share interactive simulation tools and instruments. The
strength of CLEERhub lies in the effective use of the collaborative space that makes it
unique over an ordinary website. The feedback mechanism is created for the user to


670

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

interact with the management and other users through content rating to judge the quality
of the resources, post citations that reference the resource in literature, content tagging to
allow useful resource searching, taking a poll, asking a question, sharing a success story
and reporting an abuse.

In addition to being technically supported by a team of HUBzero professionals,
CLEERhub is managed by a community coordinator or ―technology steward,‖ (Wenger
et al., 2009) who helps the community construct and maintain a suitable digital habitat.

3. Adoption of CLEERhub
Because CLEERhub can be identified as a complex networked technology (Lyytinen &
Damsgaard, 2001), multiple levels of analysis are required to investigate how HUB
technologies can or will diffuse. First, we use the framework developed by Hacker and
Magana (2011) that uses the Rogers’ (1995) Diffusion of Innovation model to discuss
patterns of HUB usage. These patterns provide a global picture at the macro level.
Second, to have a detailed picture of the adoption process, we look at how students in one
college classroom used CLEERhub as a local case study. These approaches allowed us to
look at the adoption process at both macro and micro levels and provided us with insights
on the impact of the technology in a specific learning environment.

3.1.

Diffusion of Innovation Model as a Theoretical Framework for
Adoption of CLEERhub

Hacker and Magana (2011) proposed a framework, informed by the Diffusion of
Innovation model (Rogers, 1995) to measure the impact and effectiveness of the HUB
created for the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) (Hacker et al,
2011). Although research on the Diffusion of Innovation model has focused specifically
in the area of information technology adoption, there has not been any consensus of an
integrated framework (Lyytinen & Damsgaard, 2001; Fichman, 1992). Furthermore, this
research has mostly been focused at the organizational level and it may not be mature
enough to be applied to the study of diffusion and adoption of complex networked
technologies such as CLEERhub. Therefore, we utilized the Hacker and Magana
framework because it builds upon Rogers’ rich and complex theory that can be applied to

all kinds of innovations and provide a framework that has been validated by large body of
empirical results and at the same time is flexible (Fichman, 1992). Because Rogers’
model describs the adoption process as one of information gathering and uncertainty
reduction (Agarwal, Ahuja, Carter & Gans, 1998), the adoption process can then be
inferred from looking at user metrics that suggest patterns of information seeking
behaviors performed by users to learn about the expected consequences of using the
innovation.
The Hacker and Magana framework maps the five stages of diffusion of
innovation that posits how individuals discover, assess, and ultimately decide to adopt an
innovation, with different sets of HUB usage metrics. Hacker and Magana’s mapping is
shown in Table 1.
We use Hacker and Magana (2011) model to examine CLEERhub adoption. As
they point out, HUB developers’ goal is for users to reach the confirmation stage, for it is
at this point that true adoption of an innovation (in this case the HUB) happens.


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

671

Table 1. Framework for measuring impact and effectiveness of HUB technologies
mapped to the diffusion of innovation process (from Hacker and Magana (2011))
Diffusion of
Innovation Stages

Knowledge

Persuasion

Decision

Implementation

Confirmation

Rogers (1995)

Hacker & Magana (2011)

An individual is first exposed Users learn of the existence of the
to an innovation.
cyberinfrastructure (CI) and gain
some basic knowledge of the
functioning of the CI. Users in this
stage follow a link, type in a URL,
or learn of the existence of a web
page portal using a search engine.
A user acts on the knowledge
about an innovation and puts
the innovation through a
series of trials.

Users return to the HUB looking
more deeply into the CI to gain
knowledge and additional
information about the capabilities
of the CI.

A user decides whether to
adopt or reject an innovation

based on a cost/benefit
analysis.

Users put the CI through a series of
trials that lead to a decision to adopt
or reject the technology. Users in
this stage have registered on the
HUB and access it periodically
(e.g., on a monthly basis).

A user puts the innovation to
work and continues to assess
the costs and benefits of the
technology.

Users in this stage have put the
HUB through assessment trials,
registered for an account, and are
ready to integrate the HUB to work
for their research.

A user ultimately adopts or
rejects a technological
innovation.

Users make a long-term
commitment to use the CI and to
make it an integral part of their
work. Users in this stage have
produced publications as a result of

their work through the HUB. Users
also contribute with data,
documents, tools, and learning
modules.

We used Google Analytics and the CLEERhub cyberinfrastructure to collect data
about CLEERhub usage. These data sources provide different kinds of data: Google
Analytics provide data such as the location of users and how long they spend on different
pages, while CLEERhub itself collects information about the visits of registered users.
Knowledge Stage. Hacker and Magana used the term ―window shopping‖ to
describe users in the knowledge stage. Users are curious about what various CI platforms
offer and ―shop around‖ to see what is available. We used the number of New and
Returning Visitors over time as a measure of users in the knowledge stage. New Visitors
are coming to CLEERhub for the first time (window shopping) and Returning Visitors
have been to CLEERhub previously.


672

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

Figure 1. New and returning visitors to CLEERhub
Figure 1 shows a stacked area graph containing a monthly summary of the
number of pageviews of New and Returning Visitors. During the first year after the
launch of the CLEERhub (March 2010-February 2011), the number of pageviews by New
Visitors remained under 1000 pageviews per month, except for a spike in the activity
during October-December 2010 when the pageviews crossed 3000 pageviews per month
(Nov 2010). Thereafter there has been a steady activity averaging approximately 2000
pageviews per month. There were a total of 44,977 pageviews of which almost 50% were
from the New Visitors.

Figure 2. Monthly summary of Absolute Unique Visitors to CLEERhub
Figure 2 shows the number of Absolute Unique Visitors to CLEERhub over time.
As the figure shows, CLEERhub has seen a steady increase of unique visitors each month,
with the exception of a spike in November 2010 that is event-based.
Based on information in Figures 1 and 2, we propose that CLEERhub is passing
through an initial phase where the stream of new users viewing pages is event based. As
they are attracted to visit pages within the CLEERhub site for the first time, the flow
seems to rise to a steady state level for the last five months (Feb-Jul 2011). However, the
average number of Absolute Unique Visitors to the CLEERhub is increasing over time.
This indicates that the visitor traffic to the CLEERhub is increasing, which is another


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

673

important factor in enlarging the pool of potential users who enter the pipeline leading to
use of the CLEERhub CI.
Persuasion Stage. Once a user has explored a site in the knowledge stage, they
begin to form an opinion about the site, and this opinion will influence the probability
that they will return to use the site again. Hacker and Magana proposed that Return
Visitors could be used as a metric to measure users in the persuasion stage. Figure 2
shows this metric for CLEERhub. Approximately 50% of the total CLEERhub pageviews
(22,229 out of a total of 44,977 pageviews) are from Return Visitors, which implies that
almost half of the users are revisiting CLEERhub and viewing multiple pages to learn
more about the CI.

Figure 3. Monthly summary of unregistered users, unregistered download
interactive users, and registered users of CLEERhub

Decision Stage. Figure 3 shows a monthly summary of the total number of users
in three categories: 1) Registered Users, those who have an account and logged in using
that account; 2) Unregistered Interactive Users, who had an active session without
logging in to an account; and, 3) Unregistered Download Users, who do not log in but
have downloaded a PDF or other resource. Figure 4 shows a monthly summary of the
number of users who have registered for a CLEERhub account. Figures 3 and 4 show that
the number of users with registered accounts is increasing steadily over time. The number
of unregistered download users per month is more than 50% of the total users and
remains constant over the last eight months in the measurement period while the number
of unregistered users remains small. This steady increase in registered users over time
represents those who have demonstrated interest in CLEERhub and have taken the action
to register for an account.
Implementation Stage. Users in the implementation stage have assessed the CI,
and decided that it has enough potential utility to be worth expending the effort to create
an account. One way to understand the user activity is to measure the number of
contributions and additions users make to the CLEERhub over time. Figure 5 shows the
cumulative number of documents, tools, and learning content contributions to the
CLEERhub from February 2010 to July 2011. Figure 6 shows the cumulative number of
groups created within the CLEERhub for collaboration by CLEERhub users from March
2010 to August 2011. Figures 5 and 6 show an increasing amount of contributions and
usage of the CLEERhub over time. Our analysis of these positive indicators and trends
lead us to infer that users are in the process of investigating, exploring, and trying the


674

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

CLEERhub CI. This evidence leads us to believe that these users are in the
Implementation Stage, and are going through the process of investigating CLEERhub

content and testing the CI. The outcome of users’ assessment will be to decide to adopt
CLEERhub, defer the decision to use CLEERhub, or reject the use of CLEERhub.

Figure 4. Monthly summary of the total number of registered CLEERhub users

Figure 5. Cumulative number of documents, tools, and learning content
contributions to CLEERhub
Confirmation Stage. In the Confirmation Stage, CLEERhub users have finally
settled on using the CI as an integral part of their work. Since CLEERhub was created for
the engineering education research community, this long-term use should be reflected in
the number of publications, technical reports, theses, and other products of research that
acknowledge or cite CLEERhub. Because CLEERhub is in an early stage of deployment
and is a relatively young platform, we do not have a large body of publications citing
CLEERhub that have been produced. It may be too early to discuss this stage for
CLEERhub. However, with the progress we are observing in the earlier stages the signs
are encouraging.


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

675

Figure 6. Cumulative number of groups created within CLEERhub

3.2. User Experience of Adoption: A Case Study from CLEERhub
In this sub-section of the paper, we switch gears and move from discussing the general
trends seen in overall usage statistics, to focusing on the experience of one group of users.
In the fall of 2010 we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of using the
collaborative space in CLEERhub to support team collaboration in an undergraduate
course at a private university in the Northeast. Participants were undergraduate students

enrolled in an undergraduate semester-long Climate Change and Energy in the 21st
Century course designed for non-science majors. This course fulfills a science
requirement for many of the students. The majority of the students taking this class were
pursuing a variety of non-science degrees, such as accounting, marketing, English, and
sociology to name a few. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 22 years old.
The implications of these particular demographics on course design was that the
science and math content had to be made accessible to beginners and needed to be
explained to students either during class time or as part of supplemental course materials.
Another significant issue to consider was the importance of motivating students about the
topics of discussion.
The overall goal of this course was to engage students in a scientific dialog about
the effects of our current energy production and consumption methods on climate change,
and to explore the impact of dependence on foreign oil and fossils on our environment
and economy. In the first half of the course, students explored the topics of energy,
sustainability, and the role of technology and the engineering design process in the
scientific advances. In the second half of the course, students worked collaboratively on
projects. Students were asked to design hands-on educational experiments to explore
energy-related topics. Six teams worked on topics of their choice, including wind energy,
solar energy, potential and kinetic energy, and energy efficiency. The CLEERhub online
platform was introduced to students as a way to support their work on group projects.
To collect data about students’ experiences with CLEERhub, we designed and
implemented a CLEERhub Usage Survey that asked students about their experiences
using CLEERhub as an online space for their project work. More specifically, the Survey
included questions such as: How frequently did students use CLEERhub? How did they
use CLEERhub? What features did they find most or least helpful? This survey was given


676

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

to students at the end of the semester and took 15-30 minutes to complete. Fifteen of the
22 students enrolled in the course completed CLEERhub Usage Survey.
In the Survey, 27% of the participants indicated that they frequently used
CLEERhub for project work, 60% said they used it occasionally, and 13% rarely used it.
Students who indicated using CLEERhub rarely explained that ―it was easier to send
group e-mails‖ and ―CLEERhub was not needed for any other classes.‖ In addition to
CLEERhub usage as a collaborative tool for team project work, students frequently relied
on e-mail with 67% usage, texting with 67% usage, and 27% used phone frequently. Also
40% occasionally used the phone, 27% used e-mail, and 20% used texting. These results
are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Use of other technologies for class project
Participants were also asked to indicate how they used the CLEERhub workspace.
Thirty-three percent indicated they made contributions to the Wiki page frequently and
60% occasionally. Twenty-seven percent said they frequently edited the Wiki page and
60% edited it occasionally. Thirteen percent contributed to the Discussion workspace
frequently, 33% occasionally and 27% rarely. For weekly project tasks planning, 27% of
students used CLEERhub workspace frequently, 20% used it occasionally. Participants
also used CLEERhub for group meetings scheduling, 20% used it frequently and 27%
occasionally. Results on CLEERhub workspace usage are shown in Figure 8.
From the results of the CLEERhub Usage Survey, we can see that students use
this online workspace mainly for contributing to Wiki pages with 33% making frequent
contributions, and 60% occasionally making contributions. Twenty-seven percent of the
students frequently edited their wiki pages, and 60% occasionally edited the Wiki. The
CLEERhub space was also more actively used for weekly project task planning (27%
frequently) and contribution to the Discussion page (33% occasionally).
Some of the students’ comments about the most useful features of CLEERhub
support the importance of co-editing a common document. One of the students said that
the most useful feature of using CLEERhub was ―being able to have a place where

everyone could edit one document without having to constantly e-mail each other
updates.‖ Another student said: ―I found it very useful how the entire group can log into
the same website and edit something that every student can see.‖ Some students said that
it was easy to edit their Wiki page in CLEERhub, that the workspace was accessible for
all the members of the group and was user friendly, and it was easy to see how many
times a person had edited the page.


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

677

Figure 8. CLEERhub usage distribution results
There were also several comments that highlighted the advantages of the online
workspace for collaboration. One of the participants commented on the opportunity to
continue group work without meeting in person: ―The Wiki page was the most useful
since by editing our work we could work sometimes without meeting and contribute to
the project by your own way since sometimes we couldn't meet because of the different
time schedules we had‖. Another participant said: ―CLEERhub was most useful for being
able to share information online without having to get together outside of class time.‖
Some of the least useful features of CLEERhub students identified were things
such as having to update the Wiki page all the time and having a lot of additional options
that were confusing. One of the students said: ―The Discussion board was not helpful
since most of the time we try to discuss in person what we wanted to achieve for the
project.‖ Some of the students had difficulties with uploading pictures and video clips
saying that: ―The format of the Wiki page was hard to use because it was in codes, and
not easy to use if you were [sic] not a computer genius. The Wiki page should be set up
more like a blog that is easily editable.‖ Overall, many of the students found CLEERhub
workspace useful for their project work. Some of the participants said that CLEERhub
made sharing information, planning of meetings, and work tasks organization easier. One

of the students said that CLEERhub was useful for brainstorming for the project and
allowed everyone to contribute.
In conclusion, our results indicate that using CLEERhub online platform can
provide an effective approach to support students’ collaborative groups projects and
foster unique opportunities for students to be active participants and contributors to the
online virtual learning community.

3.3. Linking the Two Approaches to Adoption
In an attempt to connect the Diffusion of Innovation approach with the case study, we
have added a column to Table 1 that speculates on how the student experience of
CLEERhub usage might fit with the Diffusion of Innovation model.
During the knowledge stage, students experience of CLEERhub introduction was
based on the instructors’ demonstration of the new online platform, helping students
create their CLEERhub accounts, and walking them through some of the basic


678

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

functionalities, such as how to create and co-edit a wiki document, how to post group
resources, and to contribute to the group Discussion page. In addition, students were
explained how CLEERhub could be helpful in their coursework, and particularly for
working collaboratively in groups.
Table 2. Linking Diffusion of Innovation with student experience
Diffusion of
Innovation
Stages
(Rogers, 1995)

Innovation Adoption in Educational Setting
Educator/Researcher adoption of
HUBs CI per Hacker & Magana
(2011)

Student adoption

Knowledge

Users learn of the existence of
the CI and gain some basic
knowledge of the functioning of
the CI. Users in this stage follow
a link, type in a URL, or learn of
the existence of a web page
portal using a search engine.

Instructor introduces students to
the CI. Students gain basic
knowledge about it, create their
accounts and then the instructor
walks them through some
principal functionalities of the
infrastructure.

Persuasion

Users return to the HUB looking
more deeply into the CI to gain
knowledge about the capabilities

of the CI.

Students have an opportunity to
explore the CI on their own
through the tasks assigned by
the instructor.

Decision

Users put the CI through a series
of trials that lead to a decision to
adopt or reject the technology.
Users in this stage have
registered in the HUB and access
it periodically (e. g., on a
monthly basis).

Students discuss in class their
initial experiences with the new
technology, voice their opinions
about its usefulness to the
coursework and together with
the instructor make a decision
to adopt or reject the
technology.

Implementation

Users in this stage have put the
HUB through assessment trials,

registered for an account, and are
ready to integrate the HUB to
work for their research.

Students continue exploration
of the CI outside the scope of
the assignments.

Confirmation

Users make a long-term
commitment to use the CI and to
make it an integral part of their
work. Users in this stage have
produced publications as a result
of their work through the HUB.
Users also contribute with data,
documents, tools, and learning
modules.

Students make a commitment to
use the CI and make it an
integral part of their
coursework. Students’ co-write
documents, share information
and build a virtual learning
community outside the scope of
the course.

Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

679

During the persuasion stage, students were assigned the task of creating a Wiki
page on CLEERhub. The purpose of this task was to afford students an opportunity to
explore the online platform on their own. Students were assigned this task as part of the
homework and were told that if they had technical difficulties, they could e-mail some of
the work to the instructor. Several of the students had issues with logging to their account
that were due to CLEERhub administrative updates and these students had to e-mail their
work. In addition, some students were confused by Wiki page functions. The difficulties
were primarily due to students’ unfamiliarity with the interface and they were quickly
resolved in class with the help of the instructor.
As part of the decision stage, students expressed some of their frustrations with
using CLEERhub, in particular co-editing a Wiki page, due to formatting issues that are
much easier to accomplish in Word document. Some of the students also had problems
with navigating the CLEERhub group environment that could be related to the
insufficient time spent on exploring the new interface. Although students were not
required to use CLEERhub for their group work, they were strongly encouraged to try it
and reflect on their experience of using it.
In this particular case, CLEERhub was introduced to students later in the term
since the purpose of using CLEERhub was to better support the group collaborative work
that occurred at the end of the term. Due to insufficient time for the implementation stage,
students moved to the confirmation stage after a short time.
In the implementation stage, students were asked to complete the CLEERhub
Usage Survey. Twenty-seven percent of the 15 participants who completed the Survey
indicated that they used CLEERhub frequently for their project work, 60% said they used
it occasionally, and 13% rarely used it. As mentioned earlier, students who indicated
using CLEERhub rarely explained that: ―It was easier to send group e-mails,‖ and
―CLEERhub was not needed for any other classes.‖ Such comments could indicate

students’ difficulty in shifting from familiar communication methods to new ones. Very
often students want to see an immediate benefit of a new technology in order to readily
adopt it. In addition, the comment about the new platform not being used for other classes
shows the lack of enthusiasm for investing time to adopt a new technology that do not
seem to have more general use.

4. Considerations and Best Practices
Throughout this paper, encouraging data has been reported regarding student and
institutional receptiveness to using Web 2.0 technologies such as CLEERhub to integrate
with learning objectives. Increased network performance, equipment capacity, and
availability have taken the best of what enterprise grade organizations have enjoyed for
decades and integrated them into all-in-one solutions that can be developed and used in
academic environments at a fraction of the original expense. There are many lessons that
can be taken from the successes and failures of implementing similar platforms in
enterprise grade organizations as well as early adopters found in educational institutions.
The authors are aware that this technology can behave similarly to groupware that
appears in many contemporary organizations, and that this technology could also be seen
as a form of e-learning. Although HUB technology will not replace traditional learning
that takes place in a classroom, the researchers believe that this technology can provide
an added value to an individual’s educational experience. In pursuit of the goal of


680

Q.H. Malik et al. (2011)

improving the distribution and acquisition of knowledge, it is important to examine and
address some problem areas that may be experienced by users.
An abundance of research exists regarding the effectiveness of groupware and elearning solutions. A common sentiment is that computer based learning is not as
immersive as classroom based learning. Part of that sentiment is derived from the failure

to use the available technology to its full potential. Early implementations of groupware
and e-learning solutions were driven primarily through the delivery of text. This is
particularly problematic for human communication. A prominent study by Mehrabian
(1971) illustrates that non-verbal cues are vital when decoding communication messages
between people. New technologies that seek to impact learning should consider the
importance of making available the non-verbal parts of communication - CLEERhub is
meeting that challenge by allowing learners to view videos of presenters, participate in
interactive, multi-party videoconferencing, and share learning experiences that took place
on the HUB with each other in the classroom. The authors are passionate about finding
additional ways to use emerging technologies to positively impact learning.
Another challenge that must be addressed is highlighted by Kreijns, Kirschner,
and Jochens (2003). They point out a very important consideration that is being neglected
in many collaborative learning systems: the need for social interaction. They identify two
main pitfalls that designers of collaborative learning environments must address. The first
pitfall is the failure to recognize that social interaction is a key part to ensuring a positive
learning environment. They also suggest that the social interactions that occur in the
classroom play an important role in forming networks that are used outside of the
classroom to enhance learning. Therefore, designers of computer based learning
environments need to recognize that people need to be able to interact with other
members of their group to ensure a positive learning environment.
The second pitfall that Kreijns, et al. (2003) identify is the failure to recognize
that merely providing a means to interact does not necessarily mean that members of a
group will use those features. Based on their analysis of the literature, Kreijns and
colleagues suggested that the group dynamic is severely hindered in text-based learning
environments, accompanied with a higher than usual focus on completing tasks instead of
getting to know members of their groups better. Kreijns and colleagues highlighted the
importance of integrating non-task interaction into a computer based learning experience
so that members of the group can get to know each other better. While this may not
directly enhance learning, it has a latent effect of creating a positive learning environment,
which is very important to ensure that lasting learning occurs.

As CLEERhub and other HUBs continue to grow and develop, it is important to
keep these two potential pitfalls in mind. In Digital Habitats, Wenger and colleagues
(Wenger, White & Smith, 2009) reminded us that we must remember to use technology
for the things it does well, and also realize that there are other aspects of community life
for which an online environment is not appropriate. Thus we can continue to pursue the
appropriate development of virtual learning communities.

Acknowledgements
We thank the National Science Foundation for supporting this work through grant DUE
0817461: Expanding and sustaining research capacity in engineering and technology
education: Building on successful programs for faculty and graduate students.


Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4.

681

References
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

Agarwal, R., Ahuja, M., Carter, P.E., & Gans, M. (1998). Early and late adopters
of IT innovations: extensions to innovation diffusion theory. Retrieved from
/>Baird, D.E., & Fisher, M. (2005). Neomillenial user experience design strategies:
Utilizing social networking media to support ―always on‖ learning styles. Journal
of Educational Technology, 34(1), 5–32.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for ―neomillennial‖ learning styles: Implications for
investments in technology and faculty. Educause, 1, 7- 12.
Fichman, R.G. (1992). Information technology diffusion: a review of empirical
research.
Retrieved
from:
/>_Diff_Review.pdf.
Fleming, S. (2005). Virtual learning communities. Encyclopedia of multimedia
technology and networking, 2, 1055-1063. Idea Group Reference.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and
scholarship in the digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
Hacker, T.J., Eigenmann, R., Bagchi, S., Irfanoglu, A., Pujol, S., Catlin, A., &
Rathje, E. (2011). The NEEShub cyberinfrastructure for earthquake engineering,

Computing in Science
& Engineering, 13
(4), 67-78. URL:
/>31479.
Hacker, T.J. & Magana, A.J. (2011). A framework for measuring the impact and
effectiveness of the NEES cyberinfrastructure for earthquake engineering.
Technical Report. />Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J. (2009). Leadership
for Web 2.0 in education: Promise and reality. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Commissioned by CoSN through support from the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation.
Levin, D., Arafeh, S., Lenhart, A., & Rainie, L. (2002). The digital disconnect: The
widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington, DC:
Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved August 15, 2011 from
/>Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2001). What’s wrong with the diffusion of
innovation theory? The case of a complex and networked technology. In M.A.
Ardis and B.L. Marcolin (Eds.), Diffusing software product and process
innovations. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McLennan, M., & Kennell, R (2010). HUBzero: A platform for dissemination and
collaboration in computational science and engineering, Computing in Science &
Engineering,
12
(2),
48-53.
URL:
/>32286.
NCN. (2006). Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN). Retrieved April
9th, 2010, from />Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J.D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding
technology for communities. Portland, OR: CPsquare.